GamePolitics - Comments for "Analyzing Activision&amp;#039;s Defection from ESA"http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa
Comments for "Analyzing Activision's Defection from ESA"enhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124948
Perhaps they felt it simply wasn't necessary. Activision and Vivendi haven't made any controversial games lately, so it's possible that they felt that it wasn't worth paying the largest fees of any ESA member when they don't really benefit all that much from the ESA's lobbying. Neither one's released all that many violent videogames over the last couple of years, neither one has has been criticized by the media or by politicians for the major violent videogames they have been responsible for, and both companies' biggest games are completely family-safe. They don't really need lobbying right now, because their Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft revenues wouldn't be hurt even if M-rated games were banned completely. Thus they were essentially paying a fee for the purposes of defending OTHER companies, and on top of that they were going to be paying the now significantly increased fee to an organization whose new leader they consider to be significantly less effective.<br />
<br />
In other words, they felt this wasn't worth it. And, honestly, I think it'd be interesting to see what happens if the ESA collapses. Currently, every member of the ESA foots the bill for repairing relations between videogame companies and politicians when one company (usually Rockstar) tries to push the envelope and stir up controversy. If the ESA collapses, though, each company gets to target their lobbying toward their own interests, and companies who don't really do violent videogames (such as Nintendo) won't be stuck helping Rockstar clean up their latest mess.Thu, 08 May 2008 16:03:48 +0000Gelmaxcomment 124948 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124947
The biggest complaint from gamers lately seems to be the lack of voice calling against all the misinformation regarding games and gamers by these uninformed politicians.<br />
If the ESA hasn't done a very good job (jds' post above says the same ) then perhaps this will bring about a new forum for the Gaming Community and Creators / Industry to start letting its voice be heard.<br />
<br />
Stand up for your medium before its taken from you.Thu, 08 May 2008 13:52:44 +0000Bobcomment 124947 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124946
The ESA is also responsible for E3, which was run into the ground at flank speed. Perhaps Activision doesn't feel like throwing its money into an organization that destroyed what was previously the most successful trade show of its kind.Thu, 08 May 2008 00:21:58 +0000chuckcomment 124946 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124945
Mjnam, the problem is that, like the guild in WoW, they are powerless to fix it and those running the guild are either blind to the problem or unwilling to fix it. Sometimes the best way to vote is with your feet. Unlike a WoW guild, Activision doesn't need a place to land as they can solo what requires a raid team. The ESA doesn't do anything that they can't do for themselves and given that the ESA isn't doing what they should be doing it's something they have been doing for themselves as far as Activision is concerned. Rather than carry the weight of the ESA and still have to do their own work, Activision Shrugged.Wed, 07 May 2008 22:44:18 +0000Maulercomment 124945 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124944
Geez, it's like running a Guild in WoW. If there are problems, people seem to /gquit like rats leaving a sinking ship rather than helping to fix it. If companies are going to quit the ESA, shouldn't they have a place to land first?Wed, 07 May 2008 20:34:49 +0000mjnamcomment 124944 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124943
Activision’s/Blizzard’s decision is equivalent to someone hiring an overpriced bodyguard (ESA). The bodyguard is hired for the express purpose of protection and in this case A/B’s bodyguard has woefully underdelivered in this regard. Their decision to “fire” this bodyguard is a good decision on their part because it means a) money isn’t going to waste on a pussy bodyguard, and b) should the need arise they can just hire some cheap thugs off the street (lawyers) to bash the crap out of the bully who’s been picking on them.Wed, 07 May 2008 19:35:51 +0000Jeffcomment 124943 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124942
Again, ESA=NO BALLS!Wed, 07 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000GRIZZAM 512comment 124942 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124941
Vinzent<br />
<br />
Wow. You hit a good nail there. Take some (not forcibly) a company's profit and use them for the benefit of other companies. <br />
<br />
Damn, that's like capitalist socialism. I think my head will now explode.Wed, 07 May 2008 19:09:27 +0000jdscomment 124941 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124940
@Vinzent:<br />
<br />
You raise a good point. On some levels it kinda don't make much sense for Activision to give the ESA a chunk of their Guitar Hero profits so the ESA can spend that money defending T2's GTA series. <br />
<br />
Of course, there's always the "united we stand, divided we fall," "we're all in the same boat," "today it's me, tomorrow it's you" counter-arguments. But, nevertheless, the economics of your point do make sense (at least from Activision's perspective).Wed, 07 May 2008 18:33:11 +0000JackDon'tKnowJackcomment 124940 at http://www.gamepolitics.comhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/05/07/analyzing-activision039s-defection-esa#comment-124939
Activision Shrugged.Wed, 07 May 2008 18:27:22 +0000Maulercomment 124939 at http://www.gamepolitics.com